HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-9-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
r -
�, REPORT File # } . /
Res. #
By-Law #
SING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: January 6, 1986
REPORT #: PD-9-86 FILE #: 85-43/D
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PETER PAUL CORPORATION
OUR FILE: 85-43/D
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-9-86 be received; and
Z. THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle
recommends denial of Official Plan Amendment application 85-43/D, submitted by the
Peter Paul Corporation.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS:
On September 11, 1985 the Town received a request for comments in respect of an
application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan submitted by Peter Paul
Corporation. The proposed amendment would permit the development of an estate residential
plan of subdivision containing a total of thirty-nine (39) lots.
The subject lands are designated "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" with a deferred
development symbol . A portion of the site is also designated "Major Open Space" with
environmentally sensitive features. Under this designation, the policies of Section
11.3.9 and Section 7.2.8 of the Durham Regional Official Plan apply. Briefly, lands so
designated may only be used for uses permitted within a "Permanent Agricultural Reserve"
. . .2
REPORT NO. : PD-9-86 Page 2
area until such time as Regional Council has made an amendment to include
such area for future development. In considering such an amendment, regard
must be had for, among other things, the urbanization of lands designated as
"Permanent Agricultural Reserve" defined by the symbol "d". It is Staff's
interpretation that the purpose of "d-Deferred Development" symbol is to
reserve lands for future expansion of the Bowmanville Urban Area.
The subject lands are zoned "A-1 Permanent Agricultural Reserve" and
"EP-Environmental Protection". A small portion of the site at the north
limit is zoned "A-Agricultural" .
In accordance with departmental procedures, the application was circulated
and the following is a summary of the comments received.
Town of Newcastle Public Works
"We have reviewed the above-noted Official Plan Amendment and find we have no
objection in principle to the proposal ."
Town of Newcastle Community Services Department
"The subject proposal had a shaded area along the creek marked for
"Parklands". Our policy is to not accept "Hazard" or "creeklands" as
parkland dedication. This plan of subdivision is not in the hamlet or urban
area and as such, we recommend cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication."
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
"The Fire Department has no objection to the above-headed application.
Municipal water is in the area, therefore, fire hydrants should be installed
for fire protection."
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
"Staff have field inspected the site and find it to be generally suitable for
the proposed use. However, Staff have concerns with the lots abutting and
. ..3
REPORT NO. : PD-9-86 Page 3
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (Cont'd)
extending into the creek valley system which is currently zoned
"Environmental Protection (EP)".
Lots 27 , 29, 30 and 34 contain portions of the Regional Storm Flood Plain and
Lots 29 to 34 contain forested steep valley slopes. On Lots 33 and 34, a
section of the valley slope is undergoing active erosion due to stream
activity. It is against the Authority policy to allow the inclusion of
floodprone lands on residential lots due to the restraints put on residential
uses by this hazard land. Authority Staff are also concerned by the
inclusion of the forested valley slopes in the lots, inasmuch as under a
residential use they are prone to tree removal which may lead to erosion and
slope instability. The gully erosion on Lot 33 and eroding bank on Lots 33
and 34 are evidence of the susceptibility of this soil to erosion.
Authority Staff request that the rear lot limits of Lots 30 to 34 be moved
back to the fill and construction limits shown on Authority Floodline Mapping
to eliminate the erosion and flooding hazards. On Lot 29 the rear lot limit
should be moved back at least enough to eliminate the floodprone portion from
the lot. Lots 21 to 27 on the north side of the main creek valley have
gentler slopes and generally less dense forest cover. The rear lot limits of
these lots abut or marginally intrude into the Regional Storm Floodplain.
Authority Staff request that the rear limits be moved north five (5) metres
to eliminate the possibility of floodplain content.
Finally, the Authority Staff wish to see the park space shown on siteplan CP1
identified as a separate block and left in the existing "Open Space and
Environmental Protection (EP)" zoning."
Ministry of Natural Resources
"A tributary of Soper Creek crosses the southern half of the property. This
is contained within the "park space" shown on the site plan. We are in
agreement with the plan to contain the creek in an open space block, however,
we recommend that the park space be extended to the south to include the
steep, forested slopes of the valley system adjacent to Lots 29 to 34.
Retaining the steep slopes in a single open space block may reduce problems
of vegetation removal which can lead to serious erosion and sedimentation
problems. The enlarged park space should be maintained in the open space
designation in the Official Plan. A copy of site plan CP1 is enclosed
showing the recommended location of the park space boundary.
An intermittent stream crosses the northern portion of the site in the area
of Lots 9 to 14. Any work associated with this stream such as filling or
channelization may be subject to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. When
the subdivision plan is submitted, we request that the Owner include
information regarding proposed alterations to the stream, particularly with
respect to changes to the hydraulic capacity of the natural channel .
...4
IVt
REPORT NO. : PD-9-86 Page 4
Ministry of Natural Resources (Cont'd)
We have no objections to the proposed use of the property for estate
residential development."
Durham Regional Health Unit
"The Health Department has no objections to amending the Official Plan,
however, the number of lots would be determined at the time as the
subdivision plans are circulated."
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
"Consideration has been given to the proposal in terms of the goals and
objectives of the Ministry and of the criteria and policies outlined in the
Food Land Guidelines.
According to the Canada Land Inventory System, the site has an agricultural
capability rating of Class 1. With the exception of the stream valleys, the
land is actually used for agriculture, primarily growing corn.
Surrounding uses include: an estate residential subdivision west of Liberty
Street, agriculture south of Nash Road although these lands are within the
bowmanville urban area, three small fields immediately north of the site and
then an area of bush. To the east the lands are used for agricultural
purposes.
Section 3.12, paragraph 3 of the Food Land Guidelines states that estate
residential development should be accommodated on land of low agricultural
capability that are well removed from agricultural activities. As the site
is composed of Class 1 agricultural soils, and is not well removed from
agricultural activity, the proposal does not comply with the Food Land
Guidelines. Therefore, we must object to the proposal ".
In addition to the comments received through our circulation, there were two
(2) submissions received from members of the public. One of which simply
requested additional information and the other which noted an objection to
the proposed Official Plan Amendment. This objection was submitted by Mr. J.
Coombes who has expressed his objection to the proposed official plan
amendment based upon a potential conflict between the proposed residential
development and his agricultural and recreational uses. If the development
. . .5
Lo
REPORT NO. : PD-9-86 Page 5
is approved Mr. Coombes has requested that an appropriate security fence be
placed along the property line and that home buyers be advised that there
will be times when there will be noises and smells related to the operation
of his farm and park. Mr. Coombes' final concern is that, if the resultant
development forces him to cease operations, he would want written
confirmation that he could amend the Official Plan and subdivide his lands.
COMMENTS:
Estate residential developments are permitted by the Durham Regional Official
Plan subject to certain considerations. Estate residential developments
refers to large lot residential developments occurring by plan of subdivision
and limited to a population yield not exceeding two (2) persons per acre.
In considering an application to amend the Official Plan for estate
residential development, the Council must have consideration for the
following items:
a) the proposal must maintain the character of the natural environment and
be located in a scenic, well vegetated area of rolling topography; and
b) the proposal should preserve visual and physical public access to
significant scenic fistas and physical land forms; and
c) the location of the proposal is such that it is not adversely affected by
existing or proposed utilities, highways, airports, railways and hydro
transmission lines; and
d) the proposal is not located on lands having high capability for
agriculture, conservation and recreation, forest production, or mineral
extraction; and
e) the proposal shall not unduly restrict the use of adjacent properties for
agriculture, conservation and recreation, forest production, or mineral
extraction; and
. . .6
REPORT NO. : PD-9-86 Page 6
f) the proposal does not create undue adverse effects on lands indentified
by Regional Council and the Ministry of Natural Resources, or the
Ministry of the Environment as environmentally sensitive areas; and
g) in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the proposal does
not require the undue expansion or extension of services provided by
Regional Council or the Council of the respective area municipality; and
h) the proposal does not result in significant alteration to the landscape
contours, watercourse or vegetation; and
i ) the proposal complies with the Agriculture Code of Practice as amended
from time to time; and
j ) the proposal is not located on lands having irreplacable or cultural
benefit to the community.
Furthermore, an application to amend the Official Plan must be accompanied by
an analysis of soil and groundwater conditions, landscape features, and a
statement of all possible modifications to the natural features of the site
required for the development.
In addition, Section 1.3.9 requires the municipality to conduct, in
consultation with the proponent, a study to implement the objectives of the
Official Plan with respect to Environmental Protection areas. Such a study
must identify the type and degree of sensitivity of the environmental
conditions, the compatibility of the proposed development with the
environmental sensitive areas, the need for and the definition of mitigating
measures to cope with the sensitivity of the environmental conditions, the
location, amount and type of development, and the location and extent of
those sensitive areas which should be preserved.
In this regard, the applicant has submitted a report, prepared by Gartner Lee
Associates Limited which provides a preliminary evaluation of the general
. . .7
60 "
REPORT NO.: PD-9-86 Page 7
development potential of the property and reinforces the comments of the
Ministry of Agricultural and Food, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority relative to land uses.
Based on the foregoing and given the intent of the Durham Regional Official
Plan relative to the preservation of lands which have a high capability for
agriculture as recited by the Ontario Food Land Guidelines (a Provincial
Policy) , and the potential for landuse conflicts and constraints upon
adjacent properties, Staff are of the opinion that approval of the subject
application would offend the intent of the Durham Regional Official Plan and
as such, we are not in a position to recommend approval of same.
Respectfu s tted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
TTE*jip
December 6, 1985
Applicant: Peter Paul Corporation
c/o Thomas McBroom Associates Limited
17 Davenport Road, Suite 200
TORONTO, Ontario
M5R 1H2
cc: Mr. J . Coombes
R.R. #5
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K6
cc: Mr. G. Thompson
Box 611, Station "F"
TORONTO, Ontario
M4Y 2L8
AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING
17 16 15 14 f3 12 11 10 9 8 7
i U
I I i i Ar
p I I 1 I I I A
I i i I I
f �
o
(10 A4 i
� 1 �
A EP I C w
U
i P I I I
- - A
1 A A JA ;
I ,
A-1 M3 A ;A
I I Z
I
( �to
(RE-4 i (EP I I w
A
Al Z
1
I i
I 1 I I
I �
i
0 M 500 1000T
KEY MAP � �"'
FA
CD 0
lL `e
at
/
ZE
; m
z
oc UP
- OZ ) b 6Z ,+T�
6L oz
O�
LL I
6 —�
` Sil!a •
i l
- vL "" O
lt. %
i